This is defendant's appeal against the order dated 28. 1. 82 passed by the . learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhatj, rejecting the application under Rule 13 of order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereafter the 'Code'. 2. The plaintiff respondent had filed the suit on the basis of 'pronote' for recovery of money against the defendant appellant. The suit was fixed for hearing on 2. 1. 81. The learned counsel for the defendant was present but went away and ex-parte decree was passed on 3. 1.81. The learned counsel for the defendant on 3.2. 81 moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree with an application for condonation of delay of two days in filing the application. The ground for setting aside the ex-parte decree was that on 2.1.81 when the learned counsel (Shri'J. P. Sarma) had come to the Court he was told by the plaintiff that he would seek adjournment and thereupon the learned counsel for the defendant had gone away, but on 9. 1. 81 he came to know that the suit had been decreed ex-parte on 3.1.81. It was further stated that the learned counsel for the defendant fell sick and could not move the application in time, which was moved on 3.2.81. The learned Court below by the impugned order rejected the applica­tion on the grounds, firstly that the learned counsel after the suit was decreed ex-parte, had no locus standi to file the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code or under section 5 of the Limitation Act, and secondly that no sufficient ground had been made out for setting aside the ex-parte decree. 3. Aggrieved, the defendant has come in appeal and Shri J.P. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree had been erroneously rejected in that the view taken by the Court below that after passing the ex-parte decree, he (Shri J. P. Sarma) had, no locus standi to move the application, was erroneous and that the learned counsel' was present on 2. 1. 81 and had gone away only after the plaintiff had told him that he would seek adjournment and hence for reasons of the counsel, the party, i.e. the defendant should not suffer. 1. 81 and had gone away only after the plaintiff had told him that he would seek adjournment and hence for reasons of the counsel, the party, i.e. the defendant should not suffer. Shri Sarma has accordingly submitted that there was sufficient ground for setting aside the ex-parte decree but the Court below had erroneously rejected the application. 4. Shri M.A. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondent, has refuted the submissions, and has also submitted that the defendant petitioner had not made out any sufficient ground for his absence on 2.1.81 and consequently for setting aside the ex-parte decree. 5. I have considered the respective submissions for the parties. 6. In so far as the first ground for rejection of the prayer for setting wide the ex-parte decree is concerned, Shri Laskar has, with reference t« the power of attorney filed in the Court below, submitted that the name of Shri J.P. Sarma is not mentioned, in the power of attorney, as is that of the other counsel Shri B. Saikia and, therefore, it could not be t said that learned counsel Shri J.P. Sarma had any power even is the original suit, The power of attorney no doubt mentions only the, name of Shri B. Saikia but it also states that 'the following Advocates who accept the power of attorney' are also attorney for the defendant. The signature of Shri J.P. Sarma is also found in the power of attorney and against the name of advocates printed there is tick mark as per prevalent practice. Moreover there are documents and application in the record to show that Shri J.P. Sarma had appeared for the defendant in the Court below not only on 2.1.81 but earlier also. I am, therefore, unable to accept the objection that Sbri J.P. Sarma was not the counsel for the defendant in the suit and he had no power of attorney for the defendant. 7. As regards the question that whether after the ex-parte decree was made the power of attorney was available to Shri J.P. Sarma for moving the application under Order IX Rule 13 is concerned, in my opinion a proceeding under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is continuation of the suit and the power does not come to an end or termination on the passing of the ex-parte decree. In Ananta Panda Porobo Desai v. Smti Lalita Poi 1978(2) SCC 681 , it was held that the very same Advocate who appeared in the suit on behalf of a party can file an application for restoration of the suit on the authority of the original vakalatnama executed by the plaintiff in his favour. 8. In view of the above pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there should be absolutely no doubt that the power which the learned Advocate has on the authority of the power of attorney given in the suit, is available to him to take action for filing an application for setting aside ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code. 9. The view taken by the learned Court below that the learned Advocate (Shri J. P. Sarma) has no locus standi to file the petition is, therefore, erroneous and cannot be sustained. 10. Shri Sarma had filed the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree on 3.2.81, two days beyond the period of limitation for filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code. The ground was that he had been unwell. While it is true that possibly the application could have been moved earlier but the party should not jn my opinion suffer for any such delay on the part of the learned counsel, moreover it was delay of only two days and accordingly I think the delay of two days in filing the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act should be condoned. 11. As regards the other question, Shri J. P. Sarma, learned counsel, had in the affidavit in support of the application stated that on 2.1.81 he had come to Court and had filed his hazira, and left because he was told by the plaintiff that adjournment would be obtained. Shri Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that this was not at all a sufficient ground for the absence of the learned counsel for the defendant and without sufficient cause having been shown, the ex- parte decree should not and cannot be set aside. The learned Court below has observed that "Had the learned Advocate been informed by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff, the matter would have been different. The learned Advocate should not have acted on the alleged information of the plaintiff opposite party. The learned Court below has observed that "Had the learned Advocate been informed by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff, the matter would have been different. The learned Advocate should not have acted on the alleged information of the plaintiff opposite party. So this ground cannot be considered as a sufficient ground under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree. I am unable to sustain this view of the learned trial Court because if the learned counsel for the defendant bad left the Court for the aforesaid reason, I think it cannot be said that there was no sufficient ground for his absence. Shri Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the allegation made by the learned counsel amounted to fraud which had not been established in the manner re­quired for establishing fraud, and it cannot therefore be said that there was sufficient ground made out. Even the learned Court below has not taken the view that the facts stated by the learned counsel were not correct, for what the Court has stated is that Sri J. P. Sarma ought not to have acted on the alleged information of the plaintiff, and that if the learned counsel for the plaintiff had so informed the matter would have been different. In my opinion, therefore, sufficient ground has been made out and in the interest of justice it is necessary to set aside the ex-parte decree. I further think that the defendant appellant should compensate the plaintiff respondent by payment of costs. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the ex-parte decree dated 3.1.81 is set aside on condition that the defendant appellant pay a cost of Rs. 200/- within a period of one month from today, in default this order shall stand automatically vacated. Parties to appear before the Court below on 10.1.89 and the trial Court below shall endeavour to decide the matter within a period of three months thereafter. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.